All 2 Debates between Hilary Benn and Angela Smith

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and Angela Smith
Monday 5th November 2012

(12 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - -

As the hon. Gentleman has a wee bit more time on his hands these days, I would very gladly read a copy of that report. He knows that the previous Government did a number of things to boost the economy and economic development, and he must acknowledge that when the coalition Government took over, the economy was growing. The Chancellor’s spectacular achievement has been to put that growth into reverse.

This is a flawed and incoherent Bill that shows why the Prime Minister was right to say that it is not possible to legislate for growth. It is no wonder that Sir Merrick Cockell, the Conservative leader of the LGA, described it as a missed opportunity. The only thing that will grow as a result of the Bill will be the power of the Secretary of State, who is mentioned 144 times in just 45 pages—that is going some.

Now, why is that? The truth that the right hon. Gentleman would not utter is that the Bill marks the death of his commitment to localism—the localism that he used to proclaim with such passion and sincerity. It is actually a Bill that says, “You know what? You can’t trust local people to take the right decisions, so we’ll take the decisions.” It was noticeable that clause 1 was the bit of the Bill that he was most reluctant to talk about. It is extraordinary. Ministers have tried to dress it up today—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who has responsibility for planning, did so when he appeared before the Communities and Local Government Committee—as a minor change that will be used sparingly in a few authorities, apparently, he said, for a maximum of one year. But the Bill says none of those things. Nowhere does it say that. The Government are making this up as they go along. What the Bill does say is that the right hon. Gentleman would take for himself the power to decide on planning applications and cut local communities right out of the process for as long as he likes.

Angela Smith Portrait Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is it not noticeable that the Secretary of State refused to give way to answer the key question: how would he define what a failing local authority is in planning terms?

Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - -

If my hon. Friend bears with me a moment, I shall come presently to precisely that point. The first question that the House must ask the Government is that if they are to propose such a fundamental change to the way in which planning decisions have been taken since 1947—that is about 60 years of local decision making—the Secretary of State must have had really strong evidence on why such a change is needed, so where is the evidence? I will make this very easy for him, and I will happily give way. Can he name one example of a so-called failing planning authority? Will he name an authority now?

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Hilary Benn and Angela Smith
Wednesday 8th December 2010

(14 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - -

To be honest, I have no idea what the Leader of the House was talking about. It is for him to explain his words. The truth is that the procedure that the Government are proposing to use to give the House time to discuss their proposals is completely inadequate.

Angela Smith Portrait Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Tomorrow, 45,000 students will visit London to make their views known. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving the House only five hours of debate is an insult to them?

Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - -

I agree with my hon. Friend. It shows what the Government think of all those students that they propose to give so little time to debate this matter.

--- Later in debate ---
Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - -

That is a powerful point. Last week, I observed that, throughout the ages, Liberal Democrats who have been faced with a tough decision have sat on the fence. I suspect that we will see that tomorrow.

Angela Smith Portrait Angela Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is it not the case that the proposals before the House tomorrow radically redraw the relationship between the state and the individual? Are they not predicated on an 80% reduction in funding for teaching? Is it not appalling that an SI should be used for such a radical shift in Government policy?

Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - -

It certainly is. The 80% reduction is implicit in the statutory instruments that we will consider tomorrow, and it is the cause of those statutory instruments, but we will not have a proper opportunity to debate that.

--- Later in debate ---
Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - -

I give way to my hon. Friend.

Angela Smith Portrait Angela Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As most of us do not have the benefit of having the time to look at “Erskine May” during the debate, may I ask for your guidance on whether a manuscript amendment would have any impact on any attempt by the Government to move the closure of the debate?

Baroness Primarolo Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have already explained to Members that if they want specific advice on the tabling or effects of a manuscript amendment, they should speak to the Clerks. Then they will get the answers to their questions about how such an amendment may or may not affect the debate.

--- Later in debate ---
Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend should have the opportunity tomorrow precisely to put that question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Angela Smith Portrait Angela Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Sheffield Hallam university could lose about £70 million because of this decision. Is it not imperative that Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and myself make a contribution tomorrow, especially given that the Deputy Prime Minister has refused to meet the local student union to discuss the matter?

Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - -

I am surprised and concerned to hear that news. It seems from what my hon. Friend says that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to spend more time in the television studios describing the changing positions of his party than he is prepared to spend talking to students who are going to feel the consequences of what he is proposing

I turn to a difficulty that might arise for all Members tomorrow, because all we are discussing—I say “all” in a contextual sense—is two statutory instruments. Here I seek guidance from the Leader of the House and possibly from you, Mr Speaker. The House will be aware of the rules governing the scope of debate on statutory instruments. A little while ago, I promised that I would quote from “Erskine May”, and page 681 states:

“Debate on any statutory instrument, whether subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, is confined to the contents of the instrument, and discussion of alternative methods of achieving its object is not in order. Where the effects of an instrument are confined to a particular geographical area or areas, discussion of other areas is out of order. Nor is criticism of the provisions of the parent Act permitted.”

Mr Speaker, does that mean that Members will be restricted tomorrow in what they can discuss and what they can say? Does it mean, for example, that Opposition Members who would wish to argue the case for a graduate tax cannot raise it in the debate? Could they be ruled out of order? If right hon. and hon. Members want to refer to the implications of the proposals for other parts of the United Kingdom, will they be ruled out of order? Were that to be the case, it would show how improper is the Government’s decision to bring the statutory instrument before the House tomorrow. If that interpretation of “Erskine May” is applied—